Abstract
Purpose: We compared the accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (erMRI), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy and digital rectal examination (DRE) for detecting the location of cancer in the prostate gland and seminal vesicles. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of 106 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who were referred for erMRI before radical prostatectomy. Step-section pathological data and erMRI were available in 90 patients, DRE data were available on 86 and individually labeled sextant core biopsies were available in 45. T1 and T2-weighted erMRI was interpreted by a single reader, who scored the likelihood of tumor on a 5-point scale in each seminal vesicle and in 12 locations in the prostate gland. MR spectroscopy data were not used for erMRI interpretation. One pathologist reviewed whole mount serial sections of radical prostatectomy specimens. The area under ROC curves was used to evaluate accuracy. Results: The area under ROC curves for tumor localization was higher for erMRI than for DRE at the prostatic apex (0.72 vs 0.66), mid gland (0.80 vs 0.69) and base (0.83 vs 0.69). It was likewise higher for erMRI than for TRUS biopsy in the mid gland (0.75 vs 0.68) and base (0.81 vs 0.61) but not in the apex (0.67 vs 0.70). On mixed model analysis erMRI significantly increased the accuracy of prostate cancer localization by DRE or TRUS biopsy (each p <0.0001). Conclusions: For prostate cancer localization erMRI contributes significant incremental value to DRE or TRUS biopsy findings (each p <0.0001).
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2158-2163 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Journal of Urology |
| Volume | 174 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2005 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Biopsy
- Magnetic resonance imaging
- Prostate
- Prostatic neoplasms
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Urology
Cite this
Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. / Mullerad, Michael; Hricak, Hedvig; Kuroiwa, Kentaro; Pucar, Darko; Chen, Hui Ni; Kattan, Michael W.; Scardino, Peter T.
In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 174, No. 6, 01.01.2005, p. 2158-2163.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer
AU - Mullerad, Michael
AU - Hricak, Hedvig
AU - Kuroiwa, Kentaro
AU - Pucar, Darko
AU - Chen, Hui Ni
AU - Kattan, Michael W.
AU - Scardino, Peter T.
PY - 2005/1/1
Y1 - 2005/1/1
N2 - Purpose: We compared the accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (erMRI), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy and digital rectal examination (DRE) for detecting the location of cancer in the prostate gland and seminal vesicles. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of 106 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who were referred for erMRI before radical prostatectomy. Step-section pathological data and erMRI were available in 90 patients, DRE data were available on 86 and individually labeled sextant core biopsies were available in 45. T1 and T2-weighted erMRI was interpreted by a single reader, who scored the likelihood of tumor on a 5-point scale in each seminal vesicle and in 12 locations in the prostate gland. MR spectroscopy data were not used for erMRI interpretation. One pathologist reviewed whole mount serial sections of radical prostatectomy specimens. The area under ROC curves was used to evaluate accuracy. Results: The area under ROC curves for tumor localization was higher for erMRI than for DRE at the prostatic apex (0.72 vs 0.66), mid gland (0.80 vs 0.69) and base (0.83 vs 0.69). It was likewise higher for erMRI than for TRUS biopsy in the mid gland (0.75 vs 0.68) and base (0.81 vs 0.61) but not in the apex (0.67 vs 0.70). On mixed model analysis erMRI significantly increased the accuracy of prostate cancer localization by DRE or TRUS biopsy (each p <0.0001). Conclusions: For prostate cancer localization erMRI contributes significant incremental value to DRE or TRUS biopsy findings (each p <0.0001).
AB - Purpose: We compared the accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (erMRI), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy and digital rectal examination (DRE) for detecting the location of cancer in the prostate gland and seminal vesicles. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of 106 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who were referred for erMRI before radical prostatectomy. Step-section pathological data and erMRI were available in 90 patients, DRE data were available on 86 and individually labeled sextant core biopsies were available in 45. T1 and T2-weighted erMRI was interpreted by a single reader, who scored the likelihood of tumor on a 5-point scale in each seminal vesicle and in 12 locations in the prostate gland. MR spectroscopy data were not used for erMRI interpretation. One pathologist reviewed whole mount serial sections of radical prostatectomy specimens. The area under ROC curves was used to evaluate accuracy. Results: The area under ROC curves for tumor localization was higher for erMRI than for DRE at the prostatic apex (0.72 vs 0.66), mid gland (0.80 vs 0.69) and base (0.83 vs 0.69). It was likewise higher for erMRI than for TRUS biopsy in the mid gland (0.75 vs 0.68) and base (0.81 vs 0.61) but not in the apex (0.67 vs 0.70). On mixed model analysis erMRI significantly increased the accuracy of prostate cancer localization by DRE or TRUS biopsy (each p <0.0001). Conclusions: For prostate cancer localization erMRI contributes significant incremental value to DRE or TRUS biopsy findings (each p <0.0001).
KW - Biopsy
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Prostate
KW - Prostatic neoplasms
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27744593527&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=27744593527&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/01.ju.0000181224.95276.82
DO - 10.1097/01.ju.0000181224.95276.82
M3 - Review article
C2 - 16280755
AN - SCOPUS:27744593527
VL - 174
SP - 2158
EP - 2163
JO - Journal of Urology
JF - Journal of Urology
SN - 0022-5347
IS - 6
ER -